Hi.

When i ‘ve got to think about been angry i can hardly find reasons to legitimize it. I can’t stand for the discourses that give utterance to moral and common goodness and well being on the basis of being upset, because of being upset. So i find unacceptable the fact that to speak of justice we’ve got to show how our pure spirit is annoyed by life. As if to get angry would be the natural way of reacting to injustice, his unquestionable trace and the motor of moral coordination. I usually call to be suspicious of things just to good to be truth and this seems to be one of them. Moreover, the danger on the legitimation of a social crusade on the divine gift of being angry together as common people is that we are more open to see as visioners just people who is bitter, and convert the bitterness in empathy. And to be moral we have to cultivate anger, the vision of widespread misery and the notion of being surrounded by victims. This all can be truth, might, in our country, be probably true. But being angry can't tell us about the total ways of injustice that operate in a society, and i it's going to veil the less emotional or intuitively consequences of the structures of interaction. 

I think that change things is necessary to separate the social of the individual, to give less credit to the precision which with our emotional needs can demark social situations and understand them as mere caprice